Thread 18112487

What is wrong with white people? How is this effective fighting?

>>18112487 (OP)
Europeans being good at killing people is basically the one thing everyone can agree on.

>>18112487 (OP)
You had this thread on /k/

>>18112487 (OP)
It works pretty well under the circumstances. Those guns aren’t very accurate, don’t have great range, and take a long time to reload. So you want to do volley fire, I.e. a bunch of dudes shooting, and then while they reload the next ones shoot, and so on. When you back it up with artillery and cavalry? It actually works really well assuming the conditions are right and the troops can get into and hold formation. Later developments like modern rifles, and automatic/rapid fire weapons made this totally unviable, but for a couple hundred years it worked very well. Also the first poster is right. Holy shit. Europeans were really good at killing shit. Or, at least making shit that was good at killing.

>>18112487 (OP)
Wakanda will never exist. You will never have a functional civilisation. You will never win a war against whites.

>>18112493
Constant overpopulation and food scarcity created the most oppressed people on Earth who were willing to march into grape shot fire for some porridge. It's a sad history really.

>>18112487 (OP)
If they weren't grouped up like that, they were just food for heavy cavalry. Ape together with big pointy sticks strong.

>>18112502
I dunno about wakawaka or whatever, but they’ve won a lot of wars against whites. Usually it’s insurgencies, but a win is a win. Best argument you can make is that they had to use the tools invented by whites to beat them. Though I think the chinks have been saying that about whites and Chinese and gunpowder for a long time.

>>18112487 (OP)
Not this thread agaiiiin!

>>18112504
>Constant overpopulation and food scarcity
I get you are an angry third world schizo, but really? Overpopulation and famine in Europe, compared to anywhere else?

>>18112507
>they’ve won a lot of wars against whites. Usually it’s insurgencies
You do realize that the implication of winning an insurgency is having fully lost in open warfare right?
You definitionally cannot have an insurgency without an oppressor in control of the land you're fighting in.

>>18113040
Yes? A rebellion is still a war. I’d further add that once those things kicked off, generally speaking the imperial power only had control over small sections of the rebelling country.

>>18113103
The point is that you're bragging about winning asymmetric conflicts, which are inherently marginal for your foe.
You're bragging about pushing off an invader, who is typically projecting power far further than you're capable, who has already flattened you in a direct confrontation in spite of said disadvantage, and who has now decided you're not worth the effort of pacifying.
It might be a technically correct counter to the other anon's point, but it's just.. sad, that you need to find pride in such a situation. It feels like a counterproductive argument.

>>18112507
Which wars? The only african war against colonialisation I know of is the Rhodesian Bush War.

>>18112487 (OP)
What part do you think needed improvement OP?

>>18112487 (OP)
>protected you against cavalry
>kept men organized
>easy to communicate
>easy to identify
>you'd fire a couple of times and the bayonet charge, which was made easier because everyone is grouped up
It makes sense

>>18113139
Lol, wait. You think I’m bragging about this? Is this one of those things where you assume someone pointing out that in fact these people have won wars against Europeans is automatically African? It’s ok. The Vietnamese, the Pashtun, and a whole lot of other not white people have in fact beaten white people in a war. It’s okay.
>>18113153
Depends. Just off the top of my head there was the Algerian independence thing, the Portuguese colonial war … I’m pretty sure there are others, but either way.

>>18112507
Yes but in the end they still become neocolonies of either the West or China (that or devolve into a failed state embroiled in endless civil war)

>>18113814
Whites only achieved that after they stopped fighting in lines.

>>18113951
>Is this one of those things where you assume someone pointing out that in fact these people have won wars against Europeans is automatically African
No? I was actually thinking about Vietnam and Iraq while writing the post. I have no clue what gave you that idea
But yeah, you absolutely sound like you're bragging about it. The immediate "I'm not a nigger" reaction (in spite of not having even been called such) actually makes it worse.

>>18112504
If that were the sole determining factor than the world would speak chinese.

>>18112504
You don't know what population or food scarcity is. Europeans have never experienced these things.

>>18112504
>Constant overpopulation and food scarcity created the most oppressed people on Earth
Gamers?

>>18112507
The Chinese didn't invent gunpowder

>>18114150
Population densities in europe (grain country) didn't reach those in some parts of asia (rice country). But overpopulation, or rather population at the edge of carrying capacity, was the norm for almost everyone at almost all times. Europe only escaped it in the early modern ages thanks to expanding into the new world (and eastern europe).

>>18112487 (OP)
its more efficient. everyone lines up and fights, the fight is decided then and there, a decisive victor is determined on the spot and everyone can then go back to their farms.

playing hide and seek whack a mole is retarded when there are more important things to be concerned about than some arbitrary boundaries on maps that don't effect the lives of pretty much everyone

>>18112487 (OP)
White people in line formation conquered pretty much every other people on Earth, so it must have been at least somewhat effective.

>>18113951
>Just off the top of my head there was the Algerian independence thing

The rebels didn't win a single battle, the French pulled out because De Gaulle wanted to get rid of Algeria out of racism
And btw Algerians aren't black

>>18113975
Square formation (a tactic of line warfare) was routinely used in colonial battles in Africa

>>18113036
The only thirdie place that was overpopulated before modernity were India and China. Everyone else hovered around less than 10 million. Not counting ooga boogas Africans and injuns who were maybe 1.5 million at most before colonization.

>>18112487 (OP)
That style of fighting conquered the entire world.

>>18113975
Lined infantry only ended around ww1.

>>18113103
>>18112507
Its not a war.
If Whites wanted to /Mongol/ on non-Whites they could, ergo non-Whites live at the mercy of Whites.
not a single non-White nation on the planet could defeat any of the top 10 White nations in Total War.
Whites are too powerful to confront openly and that is why ALL resistance to Whites is done by slave morality tactik, hiding behind civilians, appealing to human rights, asymmetrical anti-combat warfare (e.g. propaganda/media campaign, demography, terror tactics).

Whites are too dominant on the open field.

>>18113975
Completely incorrect.

>>18114563
In the past, yes. But now it's too late given whites have given all their technology to non-whites.

Everyone who makes fun of it needs to he on a battlefield with the smoke and the bullets whizzing by and bouncing off the ground nearby and forced to defeat one of the formations singlehandedly

I mean yeah it's scary to think about just walking up and standing there while people shoot at each other, which is where the thought "that's dumb" comes from

But it's also fucking scary to think about grabbing a spear or club and just running at a mass of people with spears and clubs who also want to kill you

That's just fighting wars

>>18113975
So Europe colonized Africa post WW1?

>>18116696
Exactly America and Soviet Russia did after WW2

>>18112487 (OP)
it's not supposed to be effective fighting, it's just a way to cull the plebs while pretending to fight for their country
you know sometimes you gotta periodically cull the cattle when it's time

>>18112487 (OP)
What people without much imagination dont seem to grasp is JUST HOW MUCH SMOKE is generated even by a single volley.
Bright colors and orderly ranks are an absolute necessity (if you forgo the massive banners of the prior Pike and Shot period... which you did because a big long line made for better shooting than a square)

>>18117479
>just kill your power base bro
>and your military manpower
>also your tax base
For all of human history the strength of a leader is their people. The fact that they ever prioritized "winning" or "survivability" blows this theory out of the water. A lord with no plebs isn't a lord of anything, they wanted as much land and as many subjects as possible.

>>18117903
This is basically true but you could make a meta argument that excess in young males would be a societal problem were it not for warfare in the first place.

>>18112487 (OP)
Notice those sticks? They make boom and your spear ranks suddenly become dead meat.

>>18118063
Okay but why didn't they figure out basic shit like quickscoping?

>>18115493
>But now it's too late given whites have given all their technology to non-whites.
Before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Saddam Hussein's army was seen as one of the most powerful militaries on earth. The capital was taken in 23 days and the military was totally destroyed in about a month. That's all I have to say on that really.

>>18115493
Have they? What non-White countries produce 7th gen fighters?

>>18112521
sorry bro but 4chan is now nothing more than the same handful of retards spamming their copy paste threads over and over again

>>18118177
China.

>>18118177
You mean pre-Gulf Wars Iraq?

>>18112487 (OP)
>White people marched in a straight line across the world and dominated everything
holy based

>>18112504
Most European populations pre Napoleonic war were mostly just a couple million. The UK was only 10 million during the French revolution, compared to modern day UK with a population of 69 million!

>>18112487 (OP)
Considering WE conquered most of the world like that, it worked!